A cooperative society cannot withdraw a court-submitted NOC on grounds conclusively adjudicated.

The Petitioner, B.D. Belwal, claimed rights in Flat No. 284, Vigyapan Lok, Mayur Vihar Phase-I Extension, Delhi. An arbitral award dated 23 March 2015 directed the Delhi Advertising Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (“Society”) not to interfere with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the flat, to permit repairs and alterations, restore water and electricity connections, and pay damages.

The Society’s challenge before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal was dismissed, and its subsequent writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 7 February 2024. The Supreme Court dismissed the Society’s Special Leave Petition on 10 April 2024.

During the present proceedings, the Court repeatedly directed the Society to comply with the subsisting orders. On 9 October 2025, the Court warned that contempt proceedings could be initiated against the Society’s office-bearers for non-compliance.

On 10 October 2025, the Society handed over an original No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) to the Petitioner, following which the writ petition was disposed of as not pressed.

Subsequently, the Society issued a show-cause notice, raised substantially the same objections concerning membership, exchange of flats, dues, construction and title, and withdrew the NOC by letter dated 17 November 2025. The DDA thereafter issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner on 22 June 2026.

Whether the Society could withdraw the NOC dated 9 October 2025 after handing it over to the Petitioner in Court and after the writ proceedings had been disposed of on that basis?

Whether the Society could reopen and reagitate objections concerning the Petitioner’s membership, exchange of flats, alleged unauthorised construction, non-payment, title and related issues after those matters had been adjudicated by the Arbitrator, the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court?

Whether the DDA should process the Petitioner’s allotment/conveyance deed on the basis of the NOC and whether costs or further action should be imposed for the Society’s conduct?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to grant directions necessary for securing the ends of justice and effective compliance with its orders.

The arbitral proceedings and resulting award arose under Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, while the Tribunal’s reasoning also recognised that a Society could not unilaterally cancel or disregard membership in the absence of a lawful statutory order under Sections 40 and 41 of the Act.

The Court applied the principles of finality of judicial and quasi-judicial determinations, judicial discipline and compliance with binding orders: issues conclusively decided by the Arbitrator, Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court could not be repeatedly reopened by the Society.

It further relied on the Court’s contempt jurisdiction and the principle that parties cannot frustrate or withdraw from an undertaking or document furnished in Court in order to defeat the proceedings.

The Court found that the Society’s objections had already been examined and rejected at successive stages. The Arbitrator and Tribunal had recognised the Petitioner’s rights in the flat, and the High Court had declined to interfere with those factual findings in writ jurisdiction; the Supreme Court thereafter dismissed the Society’s SLP.

The Society’s subsequent objections concerning membership, the exchange of flats, alleged illegal construction, non-payment, title, and the Petitioner’s wife’s property were therefore attempts to reagitate matters that had attained finality.

The NOC was voluntarily issued and handed over to the Petitioner in Court on 10 October 2025, resulting in disposal of the writ petition. Its later withdrawal on grounds already adjudicated was held to be untenable and inconsistent with the Society’s obligation to comply with the Court’s orders.

The Court accordingly characterised the Society’s conduct as contumacious, while discharging the contempt proceedings subject to payment of costs.

The Society was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs to the Petitioner within one month for wasting judicial time and engaging in contumacious conduct.

The contempt proceedings against the Society’s office-bearers were discharged subject to payment of the costs, and all pending applications were disposed of.